Skins launch $2 million law suit against UCI

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 3, 2009
335
0
0
The Game, you are 100% right, this is forcing the UCI to make a statement that will then be used in evidence against them if the Swiss Judicial system decide to pursue Kimmages case with any vigor. As for Skins, an anti-doping stance is good for its image and of course there is no such thing as bad publicity.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Master50 said:
I fear this suit will do severe damage to the sport and to anti doping efforts. Try too hard to eradicate a problem and the publicity ruins you. Maybe Baseball and football have it right. Frankly they missed the mark anyway. They should be suing WADA for their unfair treatment of doping in cycling while completely ignoring the problems in the other sports. Operation Puerto has been mostly a cover up of football and tennis dopers. We don't need external criticism of the sport because we can do a better job ourselves.
Wow, have you been sitting on that post since, what, 2009?
 
TheGame said:
As already stated, this has nothing to do with any damages Skins may or may not have suffered. It is all about drawing a legal response from the UCI that may be relevant to any criminal action by Paul Kimmage.
The SKINS wikipedia page says: "Skins has a history of bold and controversial advertising".

How much did that lawyer's letter cost them?

How much pre-Christmas publicity has it got them?

As the Americans like to say - "Do the Math"
 
May 20, 2010
175
0
0
Do you think the open letter the owner of Skins put out not long ago calling for the resignation of Fat Pat and Hein will compromise this action, could be looked upon as a personal vendetta more then commercial damages
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
TheGame said:
It is 110% related to the Kimmage case. Aguet is forcing the UCI into making a legal statement of defence that they really dont want to be making. Its not check mate yet, but that surely can only be a couple of moves away.
It does not align.

The UCI/Verbruggen/McQuaid case against Kimmage has been put on hold until the proposed but happening independent investigation into the UCI has been completed.

I read somewhere that this report is expected in June 2013!

The Swiss canton public prosecutor's action commenced by Kimmage and others will, if the investigation warrants, wait for no man.

Lawyers acting for UCI will use procedural weaponry to delay the SKINS action.

We will be waiting for the age of Aquarius "When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars...."
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
The letter from Skins (Aguet) to UCI. Looks mostly like a tactic to clog up the defense side with a bit of extra work. As well as aggressive profiling by Skins.

http://s4.skins.net/docs/SKINS-vs-UCI-Patrick-McQuaid-Henricus-Verbruggen-20121102-EN.pdf

"When it decided to invest in cycling not only as a sponsor but also in extending its product range through massive investments in R&D, SKINS was under the illusion that professional cycling had been fundamentally reformed to contain doping and to minimise the risks of scandals with which the brand of any sponsor could be associated.

It has now been proven that these legitimate expectations have been betrayed on the grounds you are aware of, which the press published at large. It has also been proven that the way the UCI, Henricus Verbruggen respectively Patrick Mc~aid have organised the fight against doping, have communicated in that field and have then dealt with the case of Lance Armstrong is the main cause for the total loss of confidence in professional cycling by the public, which harms SKINS, as well as any other sponsor or supplier. Therefore, the acts and omissions by the UCI, Henricus Verbruggen respectively Patrick Mc~aid have caused the prejudice SKINS now suffers, which prejudice exceeds the amount of USD 2,000,000, sum which the latter intends to recover through the Courts. Before proceeding, I would be thankful if you could let me know by return of mail if a settlement could be envisioned."


more on Skins here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skins_(sportswear)
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
The letter from Skins (Aguet) to UCI. Looks mostly like a tactic to clog up the defense side with a bit of extra work. More "unleashing hell". As well as aggressive profiling by Skins.

http://s4.skins.net/docs/SKINS-vs-UCI-Patrick-McQuaid-Henricus-Verbruggen-20121102-EN.pdf

"When it decided to invest in cycling not only as a sponsor but also in extending its product range through massive investments in R&D, SKINS was under the illusion that professional cycling had been fundamentally reformed to contain doping and to minimise the risks of scandals with which the brand of any sponsor could be associated.

It has now been proven that these legitimate expectations have been betrayed on the grounds you are aware of, which the press published at large. It has also been proven that the way the UCI, Henricus Verbruggen respectively Patrick Mc~aid have organised the fight against doping, have communicated in that field and have then dealt with the case of Lance Armstrong is the main cause for the total loss of confidence in professional cycling by the public, which harms SKINS, as well as any other sponsor or supplier. Therefore, the acts and omissions by the UCI, Henricus Verbruggen respectively Patrick Mc~aid have caused the prejudice SKINS now suffers, which prejudice exceeds the amount of USD 2,000,000, sum which the latter intends to recover through the Courts. Before proceeding, I would be thankful if you could let me know by return of mail if a settlement could be envisioned."


more on Skins here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skins_(sportswear)
 
May 25, 2011
153
0
0
Parker said:
The SKINS wikipedia page says: "Skins has a history of bold and controversial advertising".

How much did that lawyer's letter cost them?

How much pre-Christmas publicity has it got them?

As the Americans like to say - "Do the Math"
That's an (implied) equation with two unknown variables. Can't do any math with it.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
A sponsor who cares about doping. Wow

I think more sponsors should sue. If the UCI gave sponsors assurances that they were serious about fighting doping and it was found out the opposite was true, I believe that is fraud and damages are due. The amount would be difficult to determine but you can't straight out lie to someone to get their sponsorship money.

If you bought a car and the dealer told you that it did a compression test on the vehicle and that everything checked out. Then later you found out they didn't and you had problems, that is fraud. If they did the compression test and later you had problems, well it isn't on them. Sh!t happens.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Master50 said:
I fear this suit will do severe damage to the sport and to anti doping efforts.
I'll say one thing for you, you always stick to the script. However, applying the same formula to every circumstance is a bit of a giveaway.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
proffate said:
visited the SKINS site... $80 for arm warmers. :eek: Who's defrauding who?
Personally I think that for most people they are an affectation but I know guys who were pretty much unable to run due to chronic injuries that are now regularly running again so there is something to it.

Skins might get some publicity out of this but they have a genuine interest in cycling and this is a proactive and effective way of maintaining the pressure on the UCI for massive reform. Also it seems they have been talking to "some people" on a similar path.
 
Pat and Hein have done this for years to weaken the credibility of their enemies. Regardless of their motives, a sponsor doing this provides added publicity in turning the tables back against the UCI.

As such I really couldn't care that they are doing it to increase sales, it's still an attempt to damage the UCI.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Ferminal said:
Pat and Hein have done this for years to weaken the credibility of their enemies. Regardless of their motives, a sponsor doing this provides added publicity in turning the tables back against the UCI.

As such I really couldn't care that they are doing it to increase sales, it's still an attempt to damage the UCI.
Agreed entirely. Would love to see more sponsors follow. Here's a thought: Rabo perhaps?
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
It is interesting to think about what is driving Skins on this action. Do we take their suit at face value? Is it for publicity? Are they willing to be used as strategy against the UCI for some other purpose? Are their goals noble or ignoble?

I don't really care if it hastens the end of McQuaid and Verbruggen - and we can move forward with new leadership on changes to the UCI that will be better for the sport in the long run - and a model for other sports.

The clownish duo should be in the trash, I won't weep for them. :D
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Velodude said:
Could be more brand promotion than being rankled and financially damaged.

Now more people will become aware of SKINS.

The jury is out on whether compression clothing works or is just a fad. Maybe a prospective line of defense for poor financially distressed UCI.
they entered the antipodean market with a product UnderArmour in the US created a strong market for, which allowed them entry into a Nike turf. They sponsored athletes like Michael Clarke and Kevin Pietersen in cricket, and stuck leggings on antipode football codes quads.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Parker said:
The SKINS wikipedia page says: "Skins has a history of bold and controversial advertising".

How much did that lawyer's letter cost them?

How much pre-Christmas publicity has it got them?

As the Americans like to say - "Do the Math"
Skins were also up before the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Council) for false and misleading advertising. They said they do not pay, endorse or sponsor athletes. They did, they do. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/852036

And they are really deluded wrt cycling reality. They did perhaps pay Aus$1k to Hardie's doping conference in Geelong Australia in 2010 at the Worlds. They had some sponsor branding there. And their general counsel, Benjamin Fitzmaurice, was there. He had on his twitter page, a banner screen, dopers suck. And they sponsored the AIS team. Jayco Skins. Little did they know, the doping goes to the heart of the sport, and is the sport. And they should have known, and done their due diligence, instead of due ignorance. Fitzmaurice should have known how dirty the sport was, instead of naively devouring the myth.

The UCI should counter sue for a vexatious claim and costs.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
cathulu said:
It is interesting to think about what is driving Skins on this action. Do we take their suit at face value? Is it for publicity? Are they willing to be used as strategy against the UCI for some other purpose? Are their goals noble or ignoble?

I don't really care if it hastens the end of McQuaid and Verbruggen - and we can move forward with new leadership on changes to the UCI that will be better for the sport in the long run - and a model for other sports.

The clownish duo should be in the trash, I won't weep for them. :D
they are a bunch of naifs.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
proffate said:
visited the SKINS site... $80 for arm warmers. :eek: Who's defrauding who?

thirteen said:
actually, shatter the f.u.c.k out of your elbow and then answer that question. worth every penny!


that is damn funny thirteen, if indeed it is a joke. They are arm warmers sold as "compression garments".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY